Cadillac Design Chief: The Interior Is The Best Part Of The Escala Concept

Sponsored Links

Cadillac’s executive director of global design, Andrew Smith, may have clued us in as to where to watch for Cadillac’s design transformation to really occur: the interior cabin.

During the Pebble Beach Concous d’Elegance, Smith stated his favorite part of the Cadillac Escala concept was the interior and its creation process, according to AutoGuide.

Smith stated it’s because of the bespoke process the Escala’s interior features. The concept does not adorn a cabin awash in just leather but instead features fabrics on the door trim and seating surfaces. Smith reportedly ran the idea of treating the interior with suiting fabric by the design team, but the team, in turn, said no dice.

However, the team then realized they could tailor the entire interior as if it were a bespoke suit, leading to the different materials on the interior panels and door trim. An air of craftsmanship was born.

Seeing that Smith was so keen on pointing this process out, we can only hope Cadillac’s production interiors will mimic the process not seen in decades from any brand.

Sponsored Links

32 Comments

Andrew Smith should be fired if the best he can do on exterior design is an oversized copy of the Tesla Model S (right down to the hatchback liftgate), with an impractical white-on-white interior. Sure this is a concept car, but that beautiful white steering wheel and interior is going to show a lot of dirt in normal use; or do they expect the driver and passengers to always wear white gloves and clean-room bunny suits? Plus the cloth seating surfaces (rear seat) will not fly in a luxury flagship, no matter how cool he thinks they look (and to me they look silly anyway). I do like the large digital speedometer, though if Tesla wasn’t doing that, probably Smith wouldn’t have gone for it either. And I prefer the old green digital speedometers, but I suppose white is more “modern”, somehow.

I even like hatches on mid and even large sedans (it’s strange that they are loathed in the USA, though likely due to more brainwashing thanks to US auto writers), but on a car this massive and this expensive, I’m not sure it adds much practicality. It’s not as if the owner of this car will be hauling his 75 inch television in the trunk and needs the enlarged opening, or will find the hatch useful while unloading his own groceries in the rain or snow. Though those features could be useful to the second and third owners of the vehicle.

So Cadillac has Smith from Australia, Ellinghaus from Germany, de Nysschen from South Africa – all in the important spots at the brand. And they prefer to do their thinking in New York rather than Detroit. Again, it’s just sad to me that GM doesn’t appreciate what it is as an American icon, with an American concept of luxury cars. But hey, at least if they are going to copy someone, at least they are looking at US based (South African originated) Tesla now.

“So Cadillac has Smith from Australia, Ellinghaus from Germany, de Nysschen from South Africa – all in the important spots at the brand. And they prefer to do their thinking in New York rather than Detroit. Again, it’s just sad to me that GM doesn’t appreciate what it is as an American icon, with an American concept of luxury cars.”

This really bothers you, doesn’t it? That GM, as one of the largest global automakers on Earth, would have the gall to hire people who aren’t American.

It all started with that damn Zora Arkus-Duntov! If GM didn’t hire him, they wouldn’t be in the mess they are in now.

You can’t just keep kicking this down onto non-American employees of GM for GM’s own struggles. The Escala is no more a rip-off of the Model S than it is of the A7, or every other Kammback car right back to the Citroen GS.

The reality is that there is a huge pool of industrial design talent to choose from, and automakers make no qualms about beating out another automaker to snag the best talent. If the best industrial designer from America wasn’t hired by GM, do you think they would turn down a call for an interview from Nissan or Volvo? They wouldn’t because they want to get hired to design cars, NOT strictly American cars.

But go ahead. Blame it on those awful foreign industrial designers. It’s not like the profession is one of the most highly competitive professional design fields on Earth. How dare GM search through the many thousands and thousands of applications and portfolios they receive every month from non-Americans. How dare they demand the best, even if the best American industrial designer isn’t as good as one from overseas.

Automakers want the best talent they can get, not who is the best national talent.

Grawdad, first off I have nothing against South Africans, Germans, or Australians. But yes it bothers me that Cadillac has been actively ditching its American roots, in pursuit of becoming a Euro-wannabe. Now I can understand Hyundai trying to copy some of the Euro luxury cars and sell them at a discount, but that’s not the Cadillac way. It’s one thing to bring in some foreign engineers, designers, etc. But when all 3 of the top jobs go to foreigners, and fairly young ones at that, there’s no way they can understand what the Cadillac name means to a large segment of Americans.

It’s a little like saying you own the New York Yankees, so you stay away from any Americans and bring in 3 guys from South Africa, Germany, and Australia for the top management jobs. Might they have talent? Could they bring in a fresh take on baseball? Sure, but they cannot possibly connect with Yankees history in a way that an American or New Yorker can. If they even had ONE American in one of the top jobs, at least he/she could give them appropriate input on what Cadillac means to Americans. Lose the Americans and Cadillac loses its American soul, and becomes just another wannabe like Hyundai. Why turn the best car auto name in America, the “Cadillac of autos” you could call it (would that phrase mean anything in South Africa, Germany, or Australia?) into a cheaper, “almost as good” follower of the Europeans? The Europeans already have that market (and it doesn’t particularly appeal to me or a lot of other Americans), try something else!

CEO De Nysschen is an Audi and Infiniti guy, CMO Ellinghaus is a BMW guy. Maybe they did some good work for those badges (I don’t know), but they are cast-offs from companies which I feel Cadillac should not be trying to imitate. Chief designer Smith is a career GM guy, but until recently he’s lived only in Australia. And on top of that, what is so great about copying someone else’s design? Again, that’s what I might expect Hyundai to do, not Cadillac. Where’s the creativity? Cadillac is supposed to be a leader, not a follower. But if you aren’t American, you don’t inherently know this. And I still think putting cloth seating surfaces on a luxury flagship is stupidity rather than great design, even if it’s only the back row seats.

So you are defending the Escala because its profile not only looks almost exactly like the Tesla Model S, but also the Audi A7? Maybe you could even mention that from the side it looks like a slimmed and lengthened version of the much-ridiculed Honda Crosstour as well. My point though is that Cadillac is the company that came up with the 1967 Eldorado – what car was that imitating? Nothing – there was nothing else like it. And while that was a polarizing style even in its day, and certainly not right for today’s car market, it arguably started the entire angular/edgy design cues that define Cadillac to this day. The other Cadillacs too, from the 1903 Runabout to at least the 2004 SRX, have been style leaders, not followers.

So is there anything wrong with directly copying an established style, the way the Escala is copying the Model S, A7, etc.? No, copying happens all the time in the auto industry. Is copying in keeping with Cadillac tradition? No, but I don’t expect a brand that lacks Americans in the top jobs to understand that. But leave it to you fanboys to cheer every move those in charge of the brand make, regardless of the actual move. Cheers mate, crikey! Auf wiedersehen!

That “Cadillac way” of not copying other brands is the reason why they are no longer the standard of the world. The CTS and ATS would not be around if Cadillac stuck to tradition.( By the way the white on white interior you complain about is apart of Cadillac heratage.)
Car companies have to be adaptive and able to evolve. The reason Americans are not at the top is because American management ran this company into the ground.

You know who saved the corvette and set the course for Chevy performance… A foreigner… GASP. His name was zora arkus-duntov. Without him Chevy would have just been a styling company before engineering. David Dunbar Buick was Scottish, Luis Chevrolet was Swiss.
I’m sorry if your Cadillac is being killed but it was already dying slowly. The other “American” luxury brand, Lincoln is run by Americans. Does it make a difference? No, they are doing just as bad, if not worse, than Cadillac and many analysts predict ford will axe Lincoln within the next 20 years if nothing happens.

Don, the Chevrolet Corvette was a poorly executed weak seller until European Arkus-Duntov turned it into more of a Ferrari-type European sports car. Arkus-Duntav didn’t have to respect the Corvette’s roots, because the Corvette at its roots was a flop.

That’s a lot different than the history of Cadillac as America’s – and much of the world’s – premier luxury brand. That’s why I used the example of the New York Yankees, rather than the Buffalo Sabres. There was no need to respect the Corvette brand prior to Arkus-Duntav’s arrival; there is reason to respect Cadillac’s brand. Unfortunately, most foreigners, especially those from brands such as Audi and BMW, want to get as far away from Cadillac’s roots as possible, and make the brand simply another harsh-riding sports sedan wannabe with copied rather than original designs (other than the ever-changing faceplate). Sorry but that’s not the Cadillac brand that was so respected that you hear Cadillac as an adjective meaning “clearly the best” (e.g. “the Cadillac of toasters”).

CTS and ATS are nice body designs with great fascias, though as rides they don’t appeal to me, too harsh like a BMW. Are they making a lot of money for Cadillac? I don’t think so. But if these cars appeal to some people, fine, make them and offer them as Cadillacs, even though they don’t offer the true Cadillac ride. However, making the brand about only RWD and hard sports ride is not a great idea, in a country where more than half the population will encounter snow at some point, and where not everyone wants to accept a harsh ride in order to turn their vehicle into a NASCAR-imitating toy.

If GM wants to create a sports sedan brand imitative of BMW, then why trash a good brand like Cadillac to do it? Oh well, if you don’t get it, you don’t get it. Just pretend Cadillac means nothing and bring on the foreign sports sedan guys, certainly the world can’t have enough sports sedan brands. Just as Arkus-Duntov trashed and replaced a (previously) never-great brand, Cadillac might as well trash a brand so great that it’s an adjective, to become just another Euro-clone.

Enough with the copying tesla bs. 5 door sedans have been around long before the model s and the a7. Saying a car is a copy based on the number of doors make no sense. With that logic a Chevy Cruze is a copy of a s class because both have 4 doors. Andrew smith is in Detroit still. Only marketing and management are in NYC

Don, again it’s not that copying is always wrong. If Chevy wants to make a Cruze that looks like an S-class, they might as well try. I remember in the late 1970’s when Ford made the Granada and most of their commercials compared it to the “look” of a Mercedes that was 4-5 times as expensive. And they sold a LOT of Granadas (over 2 million units over 7-8 years), obviously it had to be a decent car for the money, but the supposed “Mercedes look” may have been a factor too.

I disagree that any 5 door sedan looks like any other though. I had a Chrysler GTS (black color, turbo, green digital dashboard, maroon leather seats) that I loved at the time, the liftgate was very useful and good with snow on it (i.e. it didn’t dump snow in your trunk when you lifted it), that car looked almost nothing like the Escala (or like a Ford Focus or VW Golf for that matter, all very different takes on a 5 door sedan). The GTS did look vaguely like a Saab 9000, but that was not the selling point.

The thing with copying, is that it may be ok for a cheaper car to intentionally copy the look of a more expensive car. The new Lincoln Continental is very imitative of Bentley. But that’s Lincoln, never really a style leader. This is Cadillac. They can do better, especially on a concept car, in my opinion.

“I disagree that any 5 door sedan looks like any other though”
You just contradicted yourself.
“exterior design is an oversized copy of the Tesla Model S (right down to the hatchback liftgate),”
If you agree that not all five doors look the same why is Escala and model s different?

These pictures don’t do justice though( probably because it’s cgi). That might be why you think it looks like a tesla. I was able to go to pebble beach and after see it in person the design grew on me.

Don, I’m saying that the Escala side profile looks like the Model S profile or the A7 profile. Obviously they have some minor differences as far as front ends, badges, size. But the Escala/Model S/A7 profile looks nothing like the profile of my old LeBaron GTS, or a Focus, or a Golf, even though those are all 5 door sedans too (and they all look very different from each other). I don’t see a contradiction there. It is what it is. If they put it in production and it sells a lot, great. But it looks like a trend-follower, not a leader. Except for the front end headlights and the impractical interior (hard to clean white; non durable cloth).

In contrast to Drew, I rather like the cloth lined interior, and I Also don’t consider it to be a matter of “aping” on the part of Cadillac – well except for the uber 4 door hatch back thing.

As far as the exterior is concerned, I can take it or leave it. The grill and front end treatment is excellent though. The side surfacing is pretty lovely too. But as everyone has already pointed out…reminds one too much of the Audi A7. How about Cadillac do what we’ve been begging for; a Full size, old school, BIG American Coupe.

Elmiraj anyone? Mercedes, and Rolls Royce and Bentley shouldn’t be having all of the fun.

jzEllis – I agree on the front end there is nice, a slight updating of the -V (CTS-V, ATS-V) front ends via some reworked headlights. But I prefer the current ATS, CTS, and even XTS front end/grille looks to the current -V’s. That grille looks a bit too Bentley-ish, and it’s also going to be seen on the new Lincoln Continental (though the LC will be even more a Bentley copy). I’m all for modernization, but to me the current CTS/ATS (non -V) look has not gone stale by any means. The CT6 is ok but doesn’t appeal to me as much, and the -V grilles are a step backward IMO.

As to how much they are copying the Tesla shape, it’s interesting that Escala means “scale” in Spanish. Because from the side the Escala looks almost like a scaled-up Model S. Put the profiles side by side and adjust for scale, and they are near-identical to me (the very back end looks slightly different). I suppose it’s a fine line between “modernizing” (where nearly everyone looks at everyone for inspiration, except maybe VW) and outright copying, but to me the Escala crosses that line. I want Cadillacs to look cool and modern, but I also don’t want them to be a follower. And I’m still in favor of Cadillac keeping the style plenty of edges and straight lines, rather than making round-mobiles that remind me of the 3rd generation Ford Taurus. Now the Tesla Model S is absolutely a nice looking car, but I’d prefer to see Cadillac keep a little more of what I see as the Cadillac look (modern version).

I also agree that the Elmiraj looks like it would be a great addition, especially in the Eldorado convertible form that they keep teasing us with (but then pulling it away, a la Lucy with the football). Although I’m also about ride quality (I fall on the side of a more traditional cushy ride, than extreme sport handling), and I’d be a bit disappointed if the Elmiraj was yet another Euro-riding “sports” coupe rather than an American cruiser. My preference anyway, unlikely under current management, but you never know.

And speaking of Elmiraj, Escala, Eldorado, etc. – is it too much to ask that Cadillac go back to real names, instead of meaningless and confusing letter/number combinations? Sure the letters/numbers may have sounded “modern” and “luxury” to some, but that’s gotten old by now. It’s not Cadillac tradition, and looks yet again like the brand is being a follower instead of a leader. And after all, Bentley and Rolls Royce have real names, not letters/numbers – their prestige isn’t exactly hurt by those.

“And speaking of Elmiraj, Escala, Eldorado, etc. – is it too much to ask that Cadillac go back to real names, instead of meaningless and confusing letter/number combinations? Sure the letters/numbers may have sounded “modern” and “luxury” to some, but that’s gotten old by now. It’s not Cadillac tradition, and looks yet again like the brand is being a follower instead of a leader. And after all, Bentley and Rolls Royce have real names, not letters/numbers – their prestige isn’t exactly hurt by those.”

As stated before, you need to look at Cadillac’s history pre-WW2. Cadillac’s had Series Numbers since its founding. If anything, it’s traditional for Cadillac to NOT have names. ‘Real names’ are the anomaly in Cadillac’s history, especially when they are a tarnished with the stain of being sub par and unreliable heaps from the 70’s.

If anything, the nomenclatures without ‘real names’ are anything but confusing. CT# and XT# are as simple and as logical as you can get. The entire range is sorted in a hierarchy and makes perfect sense.

How, in the old ‘real names’ nonsense, where you to know where the Seville was in relation to a Deville or Eldorado? How do you know who’s higher on the food chain, who has the money, and who runs the show? A hypothetical CT8 would tell you about the kind of wealth the person who drives it better than that of a CT5.

Vanity is at the core of luxury. People like having their ego stroked. It’s Cadillacs’ joke to make the consumer feel good about what they’ve bought.

Craw, Cadillac’s first cars had names: Runabout and Tonneau. They then had model letters in the 00’s, numbers in the 10’s, real names in the 20’s, engine based names in the 30’s. Post-war until recent decades, when Cadillac fully established the luxury reputation that holds today, it was real names. As to CT# and XT# “making sense”, that seems to be in your mind, not the public’s. Wasn’t this very forum expressing confusion over the XT5 vs. XTS recently (per de Nysschen’s decision to refresh the XTS (or did he mean the XT5, it was wondered). So the XT5 is a crossover SUV and the XTS is the last of the “cruiser” (rather than “sports”) sedans, and it all makes perfect sense to you?

You are funny Craw, you seem to be eager to defend EVERYTHING current Cadillac management does, like a mother hen protecting her chicks. Whatever Cadillac does, it’s always the right move! That’s a true fanboy, congratulations.

Cadillacs were numbered until 1964. Series 60, 61,62,63,64,67,70 and 75 were the main nameplates from the 30s -1964. Eldorado,de ville and fleetwood were all sub series of those models until 1964-65 when actual names came into play. However when the name came out only the first generations were good until. After that the were flat out horrible, sure they comfortable but that was it. So the named Cadillac represent the dark ages of Cadillac, when it lost its crown. The names are beautiful but have been tarnished because they represent Cadillac’s decline.

Don, you could call them “trim levels”, but Cadillac had a Runabout and Tonneau at inception, and these were only referred to as “Model A” when the company came out with a “Model B” the next year. Initially they were names only.

They were using names like Phaeton and Fleetwood in the 20’s, which later became official names or trim level names in the post-war years. The first use of de Ville was the Coupe de Ville in 1949 – yes a trim level but still a Cadillac name that eventually became an official car name (as DeVille) in later years. The first use of Eldorado was in 1953, technically a series 62 convertible, but when Cadillac retired the name in 2002, they noted it as having been initiated in 1953. Subseries until 1964 or not, these were unique names to Cadillac.

Look today for a 1962 Cadillac convertible, and you’ll more likely find them referred to as Eldorado or Deville, rather than series 62. So I wouldn’t say that today’s nomenclature of CTS, XTS, ATS, XT5, CT6 are like pre-1964 Cadillac, if so where are the unique trim level names? “Base”, “Luxury”, “Premium”, “Performance” aren’t unique Cadillac names. So the company is left with only soulless, meaningless letters and numbers. Or even where are the “Model D” and “Series 62” names?

It’s clear that Cadillac has brought in a copy of the same type of letter/number combination nomenclature as BMW, Lexus, Acura, Infiti, Audi, Mercedes, rather than any sort of tribute to its own past. Again showing that Cadillac is trying to be a follower that doesn’t appreciate its own history, as if the company began from scratch in 2003 with the XLR, followed in rapid succession by the SRX, STS, DTS, etc.

I further would say – even if you ignore the unique trim level names of the earlier era, in preference for “series 62”, etc. – that the 1964-2003 period was the “dark ages” for Cadillac. It wasn’t until the 70’s that Mercedes was viewed as the semi-affordable luxury car of choice (as opposed to an “unaffordable” luxury brand like Rolls Royce), and even then it was debatable as to who was “best”. In the 80’s and 90’s Cadillac had a few clunkers like the Cimarron and Catera (especially the advertising for the latter). But overall this was still a period of many great Cadillacs, not “dark ages”.

By the way, I saw a commercial for the XT5 on tv tonight, I think during the Texas/Notre Dame game. It reminded me that the XT5 is really a new model SRX. At first I thought I was looking at a commercial for the old SRX (to clear up the last of the 2016 inventory?), but it was for the XT5. Sure there’s a slight size difference from the old SRX, and thankfully the XT5 has an improved (less harsh) ride, but normally those changes would not be enough to account for a full name change.

Yes I know, “XT” is supposed to be the new prefix for crossovers, or it will be once they change the name of the XTS sedan, and until someone at Cadillac decides to change the naming system once more. But the flux in names shows a company trying to reinvent itself, running away from its past again and again. That does not give a lot of confidence to the customer base, it looks like a lost company in search of something to imitate, anywhere but its own past. Maybe that’s why the XT5 looks like it is crying (tears flowing from the headlights), because it wanted to be called an SRX.

And you seem to be hanging onto a past history of Cadillac that no one under 40 remembers, recognizes, or cares about. Luxury buyers want the cutting edge, not inferior stuff from the past.

So of course, in your eyes, you’re going to see me as a defensive fan of Cadillac as it is. The alternative you’re proposing isn’t luxurious, appealing, or even contemporary. Cadillac is not a salute to the past. You don’t see BMW, Lincoln, Lexus, or Mercedes excessively droning on about important it is that their best cars have to look and feel like cars from 50 years.

They also don’t get hung up on the dreaded ‘foreign’ industrial designer who works for them making cars that aren’t fitting jingoistic ideals of a past that even you can’t remember.

So why bother trying to emulate the past if you can’t even remember it accurately? It might be better to work hard at advancing the craft of luxury automobiles…you know, like every other luxury automaker does, instead of trying to point excitedly at the past because you have no redeeming qualities in the present.

It’s like when someone is so eager to remind you that they come from a huge family whos name is etched in history, but they themselves are completely talentless. Since they have no redeeming qualities, they try to talk up their familiy’s names past achievement while trying to downplay the fact they’ve done nothing remarkable with their own lives.

That kind of person is what Cadillac was from 1950 to 2002.

If Cadillac wants to earn that respect back for it’s name, even if it is to be ‘the standard of the world’, it will need to become more remarkable then the past that it was. No amount of your hand-job memories of the past will contribute in making Cadillac of today better in any way.

Graw, it’s not whether people under 40 know or care about Cadillac’s history at this point. It’s about market opportunity. Human physiology has not changed. A large number of human bodies appreciate a plush ride, especially older (50+ bodies). And those bodies often have a lot of money to spend. If Cadillac becomes simply another “sports ride” and RWD company, it’s going to miss a major market segment that wants true luxury, not the ability to dart in and out of traffic like a maniac.

Now if Cadillac wants to offer sports sedans too, that’s fine, but they should never become exclusively a sports sedan maker. There are plenty of those already. Cadillac should re-establish it’s famed “riding on a cloud/magic carpet” ride for at least some of their vehicles, and it should advertise them to everyone, rather than trying to run away from them. Now the under 40 crowd might not care about a plush-riding vehicle now, but if Cadillac establishes in their minds that they have this product, eventually will come the day when they have both the desire and the wealth to buy such a car. Cadillac should be thinking long term, rather than trying to re-invent its mission every few years, confusing the public with a chameleon approach.

That’s not to say that Cadillac should never change. On the contrary, Cadillac should be creative and modern in their designs, and be modern in technology also. I used to laugh at the old “grandpa type” cars that still had a the PRNDL selector on the steering wheel instead of on the floor, and bench seats instead of bucket seats, long after all other cars had changed – simply because the old fogeys were used to those old styles and didn’t want to change. But today I laugh when I see drivers in their 70’s and 80’s with low-profile, “high-performance” tires on their luxury cars. Forcing people into harsh luxury rides just because some “enthusiast” NASCAR-wannabe auto writer holds sway across the industry makes no sense. Cadillac could get major sales and profits, if they would explain that they are ready to serve that segment and in fact have a history of doing it, rather than pretending that everyone wants a harsh “performance” hot rod. So it’s about the sales, including long term sales, not just history for its own sake.

But by all means, Cadillac styling and technology should be modern. The ATS and CTS are great looking, modern cars. But Cadillac does not have to be heading toward being an exclusively hard-riding “luxury sports sedan” company, whose products are not good in snow (or wet leaves), but they are oh-so-great for doing doughnuts on dry pavement, and other juvenile applications. Let’s face it, there’s nothing particularly modern about a harsh ride, or even low-profile “performance” tires. Stagecoach wagons rolled with harsh rides and wheels similar to today’s performance tires, and that’s not exactly modern. Low profile bicycle tires have been around a long time as well, but I wouldn’t want my car riding on them. A so-called “sporty” ride is a choice, not a technology. I’m just saying it doesn’t make a lot of sense for Cadillac to go exclusively after a “luxury sports sedan” market that is already crowded, when it could offer a better ride to an underserved segment, too.

Alex Luft, founder of this GM Authority website, has predicted (on the August 28 XTS topic, in the comments) that eventually the “soft luxury” market will become so small that it won’t be worth serving. I disagree. To me that’s like saying that current trends in music mean that eventually only rap and hip-hop will be worth producing, because very few people will want rock, folk, classical, country, jazz, blues, etc. in the future. I think it would be silly for Cadillac not to at least keep one foot in that market, but they seem to be moving that way, with even their “soft ride” FWD models getting harsher and harsher with each iteration.

By the way, the Chinese market it massive and growing. And from what I can tell, they are not under the brainwashed influence of the “enthusiast” auto writers, who want to force everyone into RWD and harsh-riding “sports” vehicles, at the expense of legroom, performance in snow, and a plush ride. The Chinese seem to appreciate a nice ride, with lengthened cars even being made exclusively for that market. They seem to appreciate American brands as well. And yet, are Chinese not human beings too? The American public could develop similar tastes (with a little help from proper marketing) if they use their heads instead of just buying into what the auto writers are pushing them into (sometimes without choice, such as being forced to take the low-profile “performance” tires with the luxury trim).

Now as far as the names or numbers or whatever, I don’t really care what they are called. I just don’t like that Cadillac has been intent on dumping its past in order to re-invent itself as a follower of the other luxury brands, especially BMW. The new name patterns that arrived in 2003 were not a connection with past numbers like “Model B” and “Series 62”, they were a direct imitation of the same 3-4 digit letter/number combinations that BMW, Lexus, Acura, Infiniti, Mercedes, Audi, Volvo, etc. all use. And yet not similar to Rolls Royce and Bentley (hmmm), or to their own storied history. But again, it’s not about the actual names, it’s about whether Cadillac wants to re-make itself like a chameleon and be simply another clone of what’s already going on, or be a leader as its prior history would have dictated.

As to your fanboy credentials, have you ever disagreed with anything current management has done or proposed? You couldn’t be any more obvious of a cheerleader. Even to the point where you feel you have to blast others when they suggest Cadillac might consider going a different route here or there.

Bottom line, I feel that Cadillac should (or should be):
1. Very modern in design and technology, frequently updated.
2. Respect its history and continue established trends, such as the angular designs that were epitomized in the 1967 Eldorado, and continued into the 2009 SRX, and exist today across most of the product line. Rather than copying others or trying to make a Euro-style roundmobile, where the never met a sharp edge that they didn’t want to round off. Let Mercedes and BMW continue their own boring trend, while Cadillac continues its own bold, stylish, and distinctly American one.
3. Include at least one American among the top 3 jobs at the brand. Don’t ever forget that Cadillac is a proud American name, not a start-up that needs constant re-invention and imitation of others.
4. Always offer at least one sedan with that “riding on a cloud” plush luxury ride, which is also strongly powered, and performs well in snow without AWD (which today means FWD, but in the future could be something else) – at a cost-effective, aspirational price (i.e. not on the level of a Corvette or Ferrari). That’s not just to connect with the past, it’s to serve a market that will exist forever, and will help keep the company profitable.

What I do NOT want to see them do is:
1. Become exclusively an RWD “sports sedan” company.
2. Pretend their past didn’t exist, and look only abroad for inspiration.
3. Look to copy others first, including the overly rounded Euro look, rather than being a leader.
4. Feel embarrassed that this is an American car company, including the hiring of all foreigners for the top jobs.

Good points, GM PDT. Though if this were a car for the Chinese market, I’m not sure the backseat Chinese owner would be thrilled with the 22 inch low-profile wheels and sport ride. De Nysschen says this is supposed to be a “driver’s car”, which generally means passengers are in for a bumpy ride. GM wants to sell in China, but there’s a reason that the XTS sells the most their – it has the smoothest ride. China hasn’t been sold on “feel the road” stiff Euro-suspension, which is also why Buicks do well there. But I’m guessing that the current Cadillac team will try to push their “driver’s cars” on China, rather than selling the Chinese what they actually want.

And of course Mr. Big Shot in China is unlikely to settle for riding on cloth seats in back, while his chaeuffer is sitting on a leather surface. Overall you are right though, this car as concept won’t show up on the production line. I still say this is a not-so-impressive enlarged copy of a Tesla Model S (the far back window on the Escala does look better than the Model S), but I’m apparently outvoted in that thought. The interior does LOOK nice, but practical it is not. We’ll see if this ever makes production – the fact that it’s even longer than the CT6 is certainly interesting, if somewhat impractical for city parking.

“And of course Mr. Big Shot in China is unlikely to settle for riding on cloth seats in back, while his chaeuffer is sitting on a leather surface.”

You might be wrong on that. In Japan at least, leather isn’t as prized in a car as cloth is. Leather is perceived as noisy when sat upon, whereas cloth isn’t. It’s entirely possible that Chinese consumer could feel the same.

That, and lets not forget that leather seating in a car isn’t partially exclusive anymore, as virtually any car can be ordered with it, thereby making it the opposite of a luxury; commonplace. There’s also the animal welfare angle whereas some consumers don’t see the need to slaughter a cow for less comfortable and more expensive seating.

Craw – you cannot be serious! I guess you just like to try to negate my comments as some sort of exercise. I hope you are having fun. So you heard Japanese people prefer leather to cloth, and therefore rich Chinese probably prefer cloth too? Clearly no cars on the Japanese market have leather seats, they all prefer cloth. Plus leather makes a funny sound when you sit on it (especially if someone put a “whoopee cushion” on it). And leather is so non-exclusive now, nobody wants it. It’s like that restaurant Yogi Berra talked about, nobody goes there anymore – it’s too crowded. Yeah right. And the Chinese look a lot like Japanese, so they must hate leather too. Great logic!

Oh wait, we shouldn’t kill cows for the leather. I mean, they are going to be killed for the beef anyway, but I’d feel better if we just threw away the skin while we munch on our burgers.

Craw, how many Cadillac models have been available with cloth seats? I don’t even think the Cimmaron offered cloth seats. Now I might take cloth over “leatherette”, but I’ll always want leather, I don’t care how common it might get. Hey if “luxury” to you means “rare” then maybe you should use a bed of nails for your car seat. You’ll be the only one with it – talk about “luxury”, wow! Leather has been standard for the premium Caddys since 1903 (or technically 1902). There’s a reason for that. Leather seats are awesome. Unless I fall on hard times, I plan to never own another car with cloth seats, or anything but actual leather. And if everyone else has leather seats in their cars, I’m happy for them; I’ll stay with it also.

Of course if Cadillac wanted to differentiate (to sound “exclusive”), they could try something like Lincoln’s “Bridge of Weir” thing. But I don’t think BOW leather is any better than Cadillac’s unbranded leather; I’ve been unimpressed by those compared with Cadillac’s leather. Maybe you should go for a 3 wheeled car, like the Dale – that’s a pretty “exclusive” model, if that’s your thing. Rest assured though that Cadillac WILL NOT have cloth rear seats on their top-of-the-line flagship. It was just a silly “concept” thing, thanks for that laugh Mr. Smith, G’day mate.

Yeah what’s with that huge console on the Escala? It’s like a wall between the driver and front passenger. Claustrophic and room-robbing. Probably takes away some legroom too, of course that’s another thing I don’t like about RWD cars. I see the HRV pictures and I can see why you didn’t like that. Plus I think they store gasoline under the front seats like they do in the “Fit”, who wants that? Maybe some gasoline under that high console too?

The interior of Cadillac models have steadily improved since the introduction of the 2008 Cadillac CTS; but there are those Europhiles who will never accept the interior of a Cadillac as being world class.

One thing that I think few people know about is the center dial that controls CUE (some people in the comments might not like the idea of a dial due it’s un-Cadillacness ,not going to name names) but anyway it’s called the flying goddess , the hood ornament of Cadillac from 1930s, and features the profile drawn onto the dial. I find it interesting because they are able to show heratage while still being modern.

I wonder about the durability of this type of fabric – for example my wool suits often fray on wear points like the pocket openings. If used strategically – say the headliner or other points that aren’t touched much I could see it looking nice and not presenting a durability challenge. Shame the article didn’t ask about any of the other interior elements that may carry over to the production side.

Exactly – durability is always a problem for cloth seating surfaces, that’s a huge advantage for leather. Maybe the designers figure that the back seats will rarely be occupied, thus not leading to visible wear on the cloth. But some back seats do get a lot of use, and for a lot of us leather is a nicer seating surface as well as more durable than cloth. I do think an interior could look nice in a leather/cloth mix, but as you point out the areas of wear should not be cloth. I’m still disappointed that they were not more creative with the car’s shape, especially for a concept car. The interior is creative and looks nice, but not particularly practical.